Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

a) They're purely that short-sighted and impatient believing that what they're doing is the most effective way to draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintanable.

b) They're purely that short-sighted and impatient believing that what they're doing is the most effective way to draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintainable, by consciously trying to stir conflicts within the religious communities to separate the minerals from the ores, while simultaneously "demonstrate" how inherently palaeololithical religious peoples are and thus scoring ideological points over the unreasoned myth believers.

Judging from how they behave, it's safe to decide on b). And not only their method will likely drive the religious more confrontational and close-minded, there also won't be much outflow of freed atheists coming their way, much less continuously, compared to what they could've achieved by building more compassionate public image. What they want is to ignite an epic confrontation where they can come out as victorious freethinkers with their rationally-based arguments unconfrontable by verses from books based on imaginary perceptions about reality, which will cause large scale abandonment of religion in favor of reason, which explains the level of their political sensibility and their grasp over how human socio-psychology works. Scenario a) demonstrates even less amount of those but at least there is no destructive intention in it (though will certainly bare the same result).

They're gonna fail ultimately. And I don't like it when attempts to encourage people to use more of logic and reason to evaluate things (especially religion) end up in failure, especially when caused by the ironical use of methods not grounded on logical sensibilities, inspired by wishful teleological visions. All they will serve us with will be mind-degenerating flame wars that will lead us to nowhere, and I have been exposed to them at a frequency more then I need in a lifetime !

In other words, your entire perception on the reasons for the campaign rests on an Appeal to Motive based on a petitio principii. I must confess, I am confounded by how you made the assertions that the campaigners are attempting to 'stir conflicts within the religious communities', as well as '"demonstrate" how inherently palaeololithical religious peoples are and thus scoring ideological points over the unreasoned myth believers', in order to 'draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintainable', which according to you is 'short-sighted and impatient'... every one of which appear to be conjured out of thin air, with nothing concrete backing them up whatsoever. There are certain ways to make your points conclusively, my friend, but tarring the character of a third party with decidedly wild speculations about their motivations is not one of them.

You seem to be under the impression that these people are of the evangelical sort, preaching in an attempt to convert more followers to their cause; an impression that couldn't be further from the truth. I do not think the campaigners expect a large-scale deconversion from their efforts; as they themselves have stated, they are reaching out to people who may feel isolated in their non-belief within the highly religious community they found themselves in, and do not expect to change the minds of those who cling much tighter to their faith. I would suggest doing another read-through of the article in question in order to catch any detail you might have missed, instead of making further wild accusations due to your ignorance of their aims.

Libya not gonna be so safe for Westerner for several years to come i guess

About time. I've been expecting this from the start of the conflict: the disorganized nature of the entire rebellion would mean radical groups would be out of control of the supposed central government. This is what people outside of Libya had been fighting for, and it certainly justifies what I had said over at certain forums which would tar me as an authoritarian nutjob for saying the rebellion would bring chaos rather than only peace.

About time. I've been expecting this from the start of the conflict: the disorganized nature of the entire rebellion would mean radical groups would be out of control of the supposed central government. This is what people outside of Libya had been fighting for, and it certainly justifies what I had said over at certain forums which would tar me as an authoritarian nutjob for saying the rebellion would bring chaos rather than only peace.

Peace and chaos are cyclical and inevitable throughout time. The longer it takes to transition from one to another, the more destructive or authoritian each becomes.

It is extremely human for such things to happen - people have limits to their patience and will boil over.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

"Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives," McCain said. "The only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power."

McCain called for the airstrikes in a Senate floor speech on Monday afternoon.

See now that has me worried.
McCaine is a Neo-Con, and they always have an ulterior motive for supporting their warmongering.
I realize what is happening in Syria is atrocious, but do we the US have the right to invade that country?
If so, why are we not invading N.Korea, or Cuba, or Mexico (to stop the drug lords), etc.
Something is amiss here, I just am not sure what.

Either the 21st century was REEEEEEEEAAAALLY short, or McCaine is just singing a new NeoCon tune of BS to further the interests of the Military Industrial Complex.
I think it's pretty clear which it is.

See now that has me worried.
McCaine is a Neo-Con, and they always have an ulterior motive for supporting their warmongering.
I realize what is happening in Syria is atrocious, but do we the US have the right to invade that country?
If so, why are we not invading N.Korea, or Cuba, or Mexico (to stop the drug lords), etc.
Something is amiss here, I just am not sure what.

Either the 21st century was REEEEEEEEAAAALLY short, or McCaine is just singing a new NeoCon tune of BS to further the interests of the Military Industrial Complex.
I think it's pretty clear which it is.

If we bomb Syria or attack Iran --- petroleum futures speculation will send gas to $5-$6/gal for the US. Follow the war profiteering and oil/gas big boy drool.

If we bomb Syria or attack Iran --- petroleum futures speculation will send gas to $5-$6/gal for the US. Follow the war profiteering and oil/gas big boy drool.

Get your trading account and CNG engine ready.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Syria's a bit player in the Oil trade.
how does attacking it effect the Oil prices to such a degree ?

I always assumed it was Russia's insistence that kept the U.S out of the Syrian civil war.

Speculation of oil futures. Those contracts are worth a ton before they expire.....and gas stations like to peg their prices to that.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Syria's a bit player in the Oil trade.
how does attacking it effect the Oil prices to such a degree ?

I always assumed it was Russia's insistence that kept the U.S out of the Syrian civil war.

Right, it isn't Syria itself but the effect that open violence would have on the region - oil (tankers, pipes, etc) are natural collateral damage.

And in futures trading, its all about the perceived risk and the potential of realization. And yeah, our little idiot Senator McCain is really just mouthing off. Its unlikely we're going to do anything to Syria without a quiet arrangement with Moscow.

Iran, OTOH, has a higher potential of disaster for oil futures (i.e. profits for the speculators) because its more likely to be hit by SOMEBODY (I wouldn't even be surprised if other Arab States were jittery much less Israel or the US). All the cultural posturing about who has the biggest balls make this a more likely scenario.

Maryland’s requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to get a handgun permit is unconstitutional, according to a federal judge’s opinion filed Monday.

I'm surprised it stood as long as it did.... that's a vague piece of shit law. Over and over again, I'm struck by how what are mostly lawyers write such poorly worded laws. "Think of the children" laws seem to be among the worst though...

Right, it isn't Syria itself but the effect that open violence would have on the region - oil (tankers, pipes, etc) are natural collateral damage.

And in futures trading, its all about the perceived risk and the potential of realization. And yeah, our little idiot Senator McCain is really just mouthing off. Its unlikely we're going to do anything to Syria without a quiet arrangement with Moscow.

Iran, OTOH, has a higher potential of disaster for oil futures (i.e. profits for the speculators) because its more likely to be hit by SOMEBODY (I wouldn't even be surprised if other Arab States were jittery much less Israel or the US). All the cultural posturing about who has the biggest balls make this a more likely scenario.

Despite Iran being abit of a flak magnet and possibly a literal one in the future, I don't thin any Arab country would want to hit it because it has got a pretty strong military force - attacking it could cause a potential stalemate.

I don't think Russia would side against them again now that the more radical Khomieni is dead, his successor is more open to building political relationships against US, but is still as reclusive.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

A deadly landslide in the mountains of Papua New Guinea, near where U.S. oil major Exxon Mobil is building a $15.7 billion gas project, is raising fresh questions about the global energy industry's scramble for ever harder-to-reach resources.

"When U.S. authorities shuttered sports-wagering site Bodog.com last week, it
raised eyebrows across the net because the domain name was registered with a
Canadian company, ostensibly putting it beyond the reach of the U.S.
government. Working around that, the feds went directly to VeriSign, a U.S.-
based internet backbone company that has the contract to manage the
coveted .com and other “generic” top-level domains.

EasyDNS, an internet infrastructure company, protested that the “ramifications of
this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating
under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc. needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability
to the whims of U.S. federal and state lawmakers.”"

I predict the eventual scattering of many domains into their various country domains, leaving *.com, *.biz, *.info drifting in the wind

I'm starting to agree with the people that think ICANN should be dissolved and re-imagined outside the US as a world organization. Despite the "fathers of the Internet" warning the government they're about to break the thing that changed the world, those guys aren't bringing big bags of money to testify with. I'd couple that "de-USization" with routing around any US domain servers that are compromised by this poisoning.